NewStats: 3,264,979 , 8,185,259 topics. Date: Friday, 13 June 2025 at 03:03 AM 3tj69

Let us confront a pressing question that many in power—timid elites, silent journalists, and so-called patriotic citizens—are avoiding:

When did a personal disagreement between two elected Senators transform into a federal case, with the full weight of the Nigerian government seemingly aimed at a sitting female Senator defending her life, integrity, and truth?

Since when did the Federal Government begin to prosecute personal vendettas on behalf of individual senators? Is this the mandate of the Federal Executive Council? Was it elected to settle private political grievances?

This matter is fundamentally legislative—a dispute between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Godswill Akpabio. Both are colleagues in the same red chamber, both sworn to serve the nation under the same Constitution. Why, then, has the executive arm of government inserted itself, seemingly taking sides?

Why is the Federal Government suddenly acting as a political bodyguard for Senator Akpabio? Where is the impartiality expected of the state? Who authorized this deployment of legal and security institutions in what appears to be a one-sided defense?

Let’s be honest with ourselves: this is how institutions collapse—not through war, but through selective justice, politically motivated witch-hunts, and state-sponsored silence.

Is this why Senator Akpabio withdrew from the presidential ? Was it to create space to pursue a personal agenda against Senator Natasha behind closed doors? If a Senate President is at the center of such serious allegations, shouldn’t he step aside from leadership entirely—at least pending a credible investigation?

Or did he exit the with one objective: to orchestrate a media narrative, complete with a suspiciously “cloned” voice note allegedly crafted by known propagandists? Was it all designed to manipulate public perception and cast Senator Natasha as a national threat?

If this isn’t a politically engineered ambush, then why does it appear that the state is targeting one senator while the other enjoys unfettered power?

They may cloak this campaign in the legal language of Penal Code Section 391 and stage it in courtrooms, but strip away the formalities and what remains? A vindictive assault on a woman who refused to apologize for telling the truth.

So, once again, we must ask:
Who is the Federal Government truly fighting for—God, or Godswill?

Festacman emkz seun Mynd44 fergie001 Nlfpmod JetApartment Bobloko jaxxy Safyqueen franciseromosel greggng Ilekokonit Allthingswork Adayi1 KingOfPeaceJoy Lalasticlala

That is where we find ourselves.

Not even by the investigating authority, the Police but by the Federal Government, it tells you the direction and intent of Nigeria's Attorney-General who is employing the services of one of the witnesses who was declared wanted for months for serious corruption charges only to reappear in "all white", attending NEC meetings and even denying presidential ambitions.

This country will make you pause and take a deep breath.

...

You're never supposed to understand Nigeria if it is explained to you

CreativeOrbit:
Let us confront a pressing question that many in power—timid elites, silent journalists, and so-called patriotic citizens—are avoiding:

When did a personal disagreement between two elected Senators transform into a federal case, with the full weight of the Nigerian government seemingly aimed at a sitting female Senator defending her life, integrity, and truth?

Since when did the Federal Government begin to prosecute personal vendettas on behalf of individual senators? Is this the mandate of the Federal Executive Council? Was it elected to settle private political grievances?

This matter is fundamentally legislative—a dispute between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Godswill Akpabio. Both are colleagues in the same red chamber, both sworn to serve the nation under the same Constitution. Why, then, has the executive arm of government inserted itself, seemingly taking sides?

Why is the Federal Government suddenly acting as a political bodyguard for Senator Akpabio? Where is the impartiality expected of the state? Who authorized this deployment of legal and security institutions in what appears to be a one-sided defense?

Let’s be honest with ourselves: this is how institutions collapse—not through war, but through selective justice, politically motivated witch-hunts, and state-sponsored silence.

Is this why Senator Akpabio withdrew from the presidential ? Was it to create space to pursue a personal agenda against Senator Natasha behind closed doors? If a Senate President is at the center of such serious allegations, shouldn’t he step aside from leadership entirely—at least pending a credible investigation?

Or did he exit the with one objective: to orchestrate a media narrative, complete with a suspiciously “cloned” voice note allegedly crafted by known propagandists? Was it all designed to manipulate public perception and cast Senator Natasha as a national threat?

If this isn’t a politically engineered ambush, then why does it appear that the state is targeting one senator while the other enjoys unfettered power?

They may cloak this campaign in the legal language of Penal Code Section 391 and stage it in courtrooms, but strip away the formalities and what remains? A vindictive assault on a woman who refused to apologize for telling the truth.

So, once again, we must ask:
Who is the Federal Government truly fighting for—God, or Godswill?

Festacman emkz seun Mynd44 fergie001 Nlfpmod JetApartment Bobloko jaxxy Safyqueen franciseromosel greggng Ilekokonit Allthingswork Adayi1 KingOfPeaceJoy Lalasticlala

This Attorney General just dey do nonsense.

Thank you for raising these critical concerns with such clarity. The apparent weaponization of state institutions in what should remain a legislative disagreement is deeply troubling.

The executive arm’s involvement in a personal dispute between two senators not only undermines the principle of separation of powers but also erodes public trust in the impartiality of governance. If justice is to be upheld, it must be applied evenly, not selectively.

The questions posed are valid and deserving of transparent answers. Our democracy cannot thrive where dissent is punished and state power is used as a tool of intimidation.

This is a serious and valid concern. When state institutions begin to take sides in personal disputes between legislators, democracy is at risk.

Justice must be impartial—not used to shield one senator while targeting another. The questions raised demand honest answers.

Selective prosecution isn’t governance; it’s abuse of power.